MGTOW – There’s No Such Thing as Bad Press?

CS MGTOW has an excellent video up discussing the not so friendly motivations of the emerging pro-male media. As CS correctly points out, the overwhelming narrative from these pieces is that MGTOW is a problem that needs to be solved. In their context, it is merely a backlash to feminism and if we “fix” the issues that in their view feminism has created, MGTOW disappears. They have a delusional hope in a return to some idyllic past that never existed. This is a narrative that we must reject. However, I think we need to accept this media interest and really any media interest with open arms.

For a long time, I didn’t contribute anything to the MGTOW community. All I did was watch and read. The reason I’ve started to contribute, in print at least, is because I believe we have a moral responsibility to help men who would be helped by MGTOW. Let me be clear, I think this is a vanishingly small percentage of the population. I think most men will reject the MGTOW version of the red pill even when confronted with overwhelming evidence of its merits. However, I remember a time when you would search for recent MGTOW videos on YouTube and find nothing. I remember a time when the MGTOW sub-reddit was a ghost town. This archipelago that we call MGTOW is growing and I believe that there are a lot of men out there who would benefit from our understanding of human nature. This doesn’t mean we should dilute our message but it does mean that we could use some help getting that message to our uninitiated audience.
The axiom that I’ve used here as a title, that “there’s no such thing as bad press” is not actually true. There are a lot of instances where the media’s glare is completely and utterly destructive. If we look at the coverage of the MRM, we can see how the media can destroy a brand. The mainstream of the MRM have employed a curious media strategy. On the one hand, they’ve done intentionally provocative and (at least to the blue pill world) offensive campaigns in order to gain attention. The “Don’t Be That Girl” posters, the father’s rights groups in the UK protesting in superhero costumes and the Register Her campaign are all examples of this shock advertising. Basically, if they can appear completely outrageous, the media will cover them. To an extent this strategy has worked. The media has covered these campaigns. The challenge for the MRM is that no one is ever going to accept the people who do those campaigns into the mainstream and the MRM craves mainstream acceptance. The media coverage, because it has focused on the shock advertising, has been overwhelmingly negative and has crippled the MRA brand.

MGTOW faces none of the pitfalls that the MRA has so clumsily succumbed to. We crave no mainstream acceptance. We don’t say the things we say or do the things we do because we’re seeking attention. As long as these two things are true, the coverage from the media can’t hurt us. Consider this: is there a news story that could come out that would convince you to stop being MGTOW? I know my answer is no and I’m pretty sure most of you reading this will agree. I contend that the only net impact of media coverage of MGTOW is more MGTOW. The people who will be put off by media coverage were never going to be MGTOW anyway. However, if one man finds MGTOW through the media coverage and his life improves, then MGTOW wins. So let the conservatives write their pity pieces, let the SJW’s write their attack pieces. At the end of the day, we will win.

I am working on Wikipedia draft article on MGTOW as we speak. Once I have a good enough userspace draft, I will submit a request to create a page for MGTOW on the official wiki. I am not sure if it will get accepted, but MGTOW today meets all the criteria of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability"WP:Notability.

MGTOW used to have a Wikipedia article in 2006, but it was deleted several times, because it violated the Wikipedia policies: it lacked notability, lacked citations, and was not written in a neutral point of view, and contained original research. Today, the situation is different: MGTOW is going mainstream, and has appearsed in many different mainstream newspapers. This means there will eventually be a Wikipedia article, whether you like it or not. Many have stated that they do not like the idea of MGTOW going mainstream, but it will happen eventually. Therefore, it is a good idea to create a Wikipedia MGTOW page, before others do, to get a head start, and zealously guard its contents.

If you are going to contribute, remember:
* NPOV: Maintain a Netural Point of View. Include criticism of MGTOW in the Criticism subsection.
* CITATIONS: Ideally, every single sentence should have a citation.
* NO ORIGINAL RESEARCH: Ideally, all statements should be sourced to reputable sources.

I think the MRM should double down on the shock value, as that is the only thing the worked for them. Ideas of gaining mainstream acceptance should be forgotten. Who wants acceptance by the vile pro war, anti male mainstream media?

I think that’s reasonable. They need to decide if they want to be Malcolm X or Martin Luther King. They can’t be both. The issue with the Malcolm X approach is that it becomes difficult to do anything more than raise awareness. If you actually want to fix child support or ban circumcision for example, you have to be somewhat socially acceptable.

To defang our attackers we must remove the charge that we are “woman haters”. Our detractors focus on the newly minted MGTOW deep in Red Pill Rage. A man in this stage probably does hate women. The ultimate goal of MGTOW, in terms of women, is a peaceable acceptance of what we know to be their nature. We can’t change it and we can’t win against it. We choose to be ambivalent. To hate something you have to care about it some way. The mature MGTOW doesn’t care. And that is what truely infuriates our detractors. We have to refocus our detractors on the mature MGTOW, if that is even possible.

I don’t think that’s what he was insinuating. Se, the point is while one can start calling themselves MGTOW once they take the red pill, there are different roads that diverge from that intersection. Feminism have metastasized too much in today’s society that taking it head on, in the opinion of most vocal and widely accepted MGTOW (as I understand), is pointless. So we focus on self improvement, stand on the curb and give out free samples of Red Pills, and wait for the morons (feminists, blue pillers, SJWs, the whole bunch) to cut down the branch (gynocentric society built on male shoulders) they’re sitting on; for the inevitable collapse of this idiocracy.

It breaks my heart to see the injustice done unto boys and my fellow men. But fighting feminism can accomplish little to nothing at this point. Just stand back and watch it burn down, and try to pull out as many of us from the Matrix in the meantime.

“We are powerless as men right now”. You are absolutely correct. 99.9% of men are beta males. Unless you are independently wealthy and sleeping with super models you are not an alpha. It’s just that simple. There are only two ways the gynocracy (women, the male economic overlords, and their police state enforcers) is going to lose its power and control are (1) via armed rebellion which is destined to fail, or (2) their economic gravy train begins to grind to a halt due to beta men in sufficient numbers refusing to participate in their rigged game. The marriage strike has already severely one business segment – the Vegas wedding chapels. The successful revolution to correct this gynocentric madness will be more Martin Luther King than Malcolm X, more Gandhi than Lenin, more MGTOW than MRA. Peaceful acceptance and non-participation (the mature MGTOW way) is the answer.

1.) Not recognizing biological differences between men and women. Men and women are different.

and

2.) [ . . . ] Also, how is this Men’s Rights when you’ve got a bunch of weirdo’s pushing off a psuedo science [sic] like HBD?

HBD is not a pseudoscience but the statement that there are biological differences between different people and groups of people, just as in your point 1. *headdesk* It only becomes a pseudoscience when it is incorrecly applied, such as suggesting that certain (groups of) people are inferior. In this regard you and Advocatus Diaboli have a lot in common with feminists, such as Rebecca Watson, who don’t like HBD either because it stands in the way of their delusions. . .

Regarding 3.) Pushing political worldviews onto the readers. and 4.) Postulating “Critical Theory” to explain the complexities of Real Life.

Yes it’s not just about politics it’s about human nature. This is the mistake of the “It’s Not Women, It’s Feminism” crowd, but it’s impossible to change human nature (until genetic modification becomes feasible and cheap) only politics, so who cares? If women can’t exploit men though the courts and police you’ve solved most of the problems.

Anyway, these is another very simple way to achieve most of what MRAs, MGTOWs and PUAssybeggars want, but pro-life nutjobs such as you and Barbarossaaaa won’t like the sound of it. It involves sex-selectively aborting 99% of the male fetuses. This may look like what a lot of radical feminists want, but it does not involve the killing or castrating of existing males. The male:female ratio in Ukraine is 85:100 and this a large causative factor in why Ukrainian women are so well-behaved. Imagine what effects aborting 99% of the males will have. It will achieve world piece immediately. It’s also the Doctor Strangelove Solution, but you may call it the Plague Doctor Solution. Remember, you read it here from me first.”

If the plague doctor posted this, he is anti male slime, I will give him a chance to defend himself though and explain the post.

LOL. First of all, I apologize for calling Barbarossaa a “pro-life nut-job”, and I retract that statement. If Barbarossaa does not want to associate with me, because of that (several years old) remark, I can understand. In my defence, I sometimes like to employ a very over-the-top writing style, for example calling PUAs “PUAssybeggars” and conservatives “CUNTservatives”.

However, keep in mind that post is several years old. My remark referred to a very old video of Barbarossaa where Barbarossaa equates women who abort millions of fetuses per year to “genocide” or “mass murder”. Unfortunately, I don’t remember which video it was or what his precise wording was, because his video was several years old. It appears Barbarossaa has since then retracted his beliefs: In a recent video,
www dot youtube dot com/watch?v=04ZDqb3Vw2w
Barbarossa said he does not care whether women abort their babies or not. I think people are allowed to change their beliefs, without being shamed for it. If Barbarossa is allowed to retract his earlier statements, then so am I. If, however, barbarbossaaa still stands by his earlier beliefs about abortion being mass murder, than I still stand by my old remark.

I would also like to add that Barbarossaa is one of my top-two favorite MGTOW, along with Thinking-Ape; that said, I am under NO obligation to agree with or applaud everything they say.

In case you didn’t know, I am an (philanthropic) antinatalist and an EFIList. I have been consistently defending the philosophical positions of antinatalism and EFILism, on the following blogs, since about 2009:
antinatalism dot blogspot dot com and
theviewfromhell dot blogspot dot com
Search for my comments on those blog under the screen name “The Plague Doctor”, if you wish to educate yourself about what my ACTUAL beliefs were at that time.

Philanthropic antinatalism is the philosophical position that creating life is IMMORAL, because it causes the SUFFERING and DEATH of the person being created. To inform yourself, search for “antinatalism”, and “efilism” on YouTube, or visit the YouTuber with the channels “inmendham” / “GloomBoomDoom” / “SufferingSucks” / etc.
www dot youtube dot com/channel/UCS5MXpjQK2d0K2D5bnIKw4A
www dot youtube dot com/user/GloomBoomDoom
www dot youtube dot com/user/GracefulExit

Also read the book “Better Never to Have Been: the Harm of Coming into Existence” by Professor David Benatar.
You can easily google a PDF of this book:
vk dot com/doc151440227_220518152
On this Amazon page
www dot amazon dot com/Better-Never-Have-Been-Existence-ebook/dp/B000TODSCY
is a literal quote from the blurb of this book:

“””””Better Never to Have Been” argues for a number of related, highly provocative, views:
(1) Coming into existence is ALWAYS a serious harm.
(2) It is ALWAYS wrong to have children.
(3) It is wrong NOT to abort fetuses at the earlier stages of gestation.
(4) It would be better if, as a result of there being no new people, humanity became EXTINCT.
These views may sound unbelievable–but anyone who reads Benatar will be obliged to take them seriously.”””””

My beliefs are the same as those of David Benatar: I do not people have a “right” to reproduce. I believe bringing a child into this world (to suffer and die) is a morally wrong, and should be a crime. I believe that this crime is morally WORSE than MURDER, because deliberate procreators are responsible for ALL the subsequent suffering and death of the child. I believe that abortion should be considered morally MANDATORY for all women; For more, see Chapter 5: “Abortion: the Pro-Death View”, in Professor Benatar’s book “Better Never to Have Been”.

Keep in mind that Professor David Benatar is ALSO a famous Men’s Rights Activist and the author of “The Second Sexism: Discrimination against Men and Boys”:
www dot amazon dot com/The-Second-Sexism-Discrimination-Against/dp/0470674512

Hence, you will have a hard time accusing David Benatar of being “anti-male slime” for holding the same views as me.

In Chapter 7 “Conclusion”, Benatar also distinguishes between “Philanthropic Antinatalism” and “Misanthropic Antinatalism”, two things which are often confused by pro-natalists:

“””””The conclusions I have reached will strike many people as deeply misanthropic. I have argued that life is filled with unpleasantness and suffering, that we should avoid having children, and that it would be best if humanity came to an end sooner rather than later. This may sound like misanthropy. However, the overwhelming thrust of my arguments, as they apply to humans, is philanthropic, not misanthropic. Because my arguments apply not only to humans but also to other sentient animals, my arguments are also zoophilic (in the non-sexual sense of that term). Bringing a sentient life into existence is a harm to the being whose life it is. My arguments suggest that it is wrong to inflict this harm. To argue against the infliction of harm arises from concern for, not dislike of, those who would be harmed. It may seem like an odd kind of philanthropy—one that if acted upon, would lead to the end of all anthropos. It is, however, the most effective way of preventing suffering. Not creating a person absolutely guarantees that that potential person will not suffer — because that person will not exist.”””””

“Misanthropic antinatalism” is the belief the people are evil and therefore do NOT DESERVE to be born. “Philanthropic Antinatalism”, on the other hand, is the belief that people DESERVE to be spared the suffering of existence, not out of misanthropy, but out of empathy for human suffering and respect for human autonomy and consent. With that said, Benatar notes that it is possible to be both a philanthropic and an misanthropic antinatalist (and I certainly do believe many/most people are evil).

I suspect you misinterpreted the final paragraphs of my post. I did NOT mean to suggest, as some feminists (such as FemiTheist Divine) have claimed, that “If women ruled the world, there would be no wars”, or “women are inherently less violent”. I also did NOT say that “men are evil” or “men do not deserve to exist”. That would be “misanthropic antinatalism”. I also did NOT say “men should be euthanized”.

In my post that you quoted, I simply made the SAME argument as Turd Flinging Monkey does in his video “MGTOW: The Magic of Male Scarcity”:
www dot youtube dot com/watch?v=RNUThlfQ2NE
namely, that male-to-female population ratios and “male scarcity” have effects on the “bargaining power” of the sexes. This is simply Economics 101 and basic supply-and-demand logic. “Male disposability” caused males to compete with and kill other males for access to female reproductive resources. I pointed out that by increasing the female-to-male ratio would greatly increase male “bargaining power”.

Do you believe Turd Flinging Monkey also “anti-male slime”?

This would also reduce the amount of males dying by suicide or murder. Prevention is better than treatment. The alternative is millions of men continuing to get killed in wars or committing suicide: is this something you prefer?

Stoner With A Boner also once made the SAME argument in one of his posts (but I am currently unable to find this post with Google).

Do you believe Stoner With A Boner also “anti-male slime”?

My argument was also the same as this blog post from The View from Hell:
theviewfromhell dot blogspot dot com/2011/04/female-choice-and-its-discontents.html
I quote from this blog post:

“””””Another solution is only possible on an extremely macro level: increase the ratio of women to men (while maintaining female economic self-sufficiency). This was “tried” in a natural experiment involving the Kenyan baboons mentioned earlier. The most dominant and aggressive males, but not the females or less aggressive males, would raid a nearby open garbage pit. As a result, those dominant males all contracted tuberculosis from meat refuse and died, nearly doubling the female-to-male ratio.

The result was a surprising cultural change in the affected baboon population. Male-female grooming drastically increased – males were groomed by females more frequently, and less time passed between a new male arriving at the troupe and his first being groomed by a female. The stress experienced by low-ranking males plummeted, measured both by prevalence of anxiety behaviors and measurements of the stress-related hormone cortisol. Essentially, everybody chilled the fuck out.”””””

… That’s about as far from being “anti-male slime” as it gets; so fuck you. Tamerlame should apologize for his knee-jerk accusations.

_________

With all that said, several years ago I got fed up with arguing on the Internet about the topic of antinatalism; and I no longer believe that arguing about it is beneficial.

_________

(P.S.: My first post got stuck in the spam filter, due to the number of links.)

“If you really want to reduce the population you have to target females though, as they are the limiting factor in reproduction.”

Actually, as I already mentioned, I mostly stopped arguing about antinatalism several years ago (after I got completely burnt-out with arguing with breeders/pro-lifers about it). I only brought up the topic, because you dredged up my several year old post. Today, while I still agree with it (in the abstract sense), I no longer think arguing in favor or antinatalism is a very worthwhile or beneficial activity, mainly because:

(1) Arguing about it is mostly futile and ineffective, and it addresses the wrong audience anyway.

(2) Antinatalism does not address the problems in animal kingdom. Human suffering is minuscule in comparison with the suffering in the animal kingdom.
foundational-research dot org/the-importance-of-wild-animal-suffering/
www dot youtube dot com/watch?v=bK2a-1K0Sdg
And humans are the only special which can do anything to stop this problem. Hence, the philosophy of EFILism, which is both theoretically achievable (though very unlikely) and a complete solution.
www dot youtube dot com/watch?v=uKD7f76KG-U&list=PLcmZ9oxph4sxzDfr2oH6tpNij-YUH5dy3&index=2

(3) I strongly suspect that within a century or two, advances in medicine and transhumanist technology, will have completely solved the problem of biological ageing, and achieve biological immortality:
en dot wikipedia dot org/wiki/Methuselah_Foundation
en dot wikipedia dot org/wiki/Biological_immortality
en dot wikipedia dot org/wiki/Negligible_senescence
The moment that happens, a complete prohibition on procreation will have to be instituted by necessity, because otherwise the planet will become completely uninhabitable due to runaway overpopulation.

I don’t even consider myself MGTOW at this point for several reasons not limited to the fact that allot of “traditionalist” ideas presented as “libertarian” within the comments section of many MGTOW blogs…

Here is the article that Plaquey is referencing:

This is a random theory I’ve had for some time now…

I’m not a historian nor do I have a solid background in statistics…

This is just a wild guess…

Back in the day, more girls than boys made it to adulthood. Also, more men were killed in wars or dangerous jobs. A man who made it to adulthood and earned a decent wage would have good prospects should he want to marry. Many women feared becoming spinsters or “cat ladies.” People would have several children as one might die of TB and another might be maimed in a farming accident. And many women died giving birth….

Perhaps this mating inequality along with other factors led the growth of women’s movements/feminism…

As things change, ie more boys relative to girls survive to adulthood and less men are killed in wars and on the job, average and lower status men have a much more difficult time finding a mate…

Perhaps this mating inequality along with other factors leads to the growth of men’s rights/MGTOW….

I never suggested eliminating males through abortion, I’ve never advocated female infanticide either…

I’ve been yelled at for not signing up with the “pro choice” crowd by a feminist. However, I’ve never advocated limiting womyn’s access to abortion. So, yes, I do think that in an environment with less men and more womyn, the average man would find mating/dating much easier. But I have never advocated killing other men to improve one’s dating life. I have never advocated “sex selective abortion.”

Ironically, Plaquey accusing me of being a pro-life nuttjob along with Barbarossaa vindicates me of what he is now accusing me of…

Hate me for what I am, not Plaquey’s misunderstanding if not misrepresentation of what I am…

The most important thing MGTOW has to offer men in general is the various videos and articles explaining why we reject gynocentrism and its key institution of marriage, the true nature of women, why society has declined and how men would be better off living outside “the plantation”. Men going MGTOW might be better off ghosting in real life and keep their heads low to maintain a better lifestyle and less hassles.

To me, MGTOW is about not giving a woman the ring of power. Why? Because every year, hundreds upon hundreds of thousands of men’s lives, in the US alone, are destroyed by women through marriage and divorce. Of those destroyed men, every year, 10s upon 10s of thousands, rather than die in poverty and despair, after having been completely and legally emasculated, commit suicide.

MGTOW have made a conscious decision to NOT let women destroy their lives. To me, that’s the entire mindset in a nutshell. Do some go so far as to avoid relationships with women all together? Yes. I haven’t had a relationship with a women for many, many years and they’ve been the best years of my life by far. I turn down all offers I get. I’m tall, well educated and in the top 10 percent of asset holders. Nevertheless, MGTOW is about freeing men from the life destruction so often wrought against men by women through divorce and false accusations.

Anyone that fails to see the beauty of the MGTOW mindset is either a secret agent from WeHuntedTheMammoth, pissed because they’re not getting their vagimony and/or child support (vagimony+), a fabled, naive white knight that will one day be destroyed by a woman or a plain old-fashioned imbecile.

The #1 most powerful and positive influence in my life as a man has been the MGTOW mindset. I’m grateful every day for the men that worked tirelessly online to spread the MGTOW mindset. Without them, I would never have been freed from the disposable male brainwashing I’ve undergone my entire life. Their wisdom came to me at a most critical point. Because of those men, I do my level best to pick up their mantle and do the same for other men.

Ever notice that women will flick their hair and rub parts of their bodies while asking men to sacrifice of themselves in time and/or money? Know why women do this? BECAUSE YOU’RE A MORON! BECAUSE WOMEN ARE JUST WAITING FOR YOU TO LINE UP SO THAT YOU CAN BE USED! YOU WORSHIP PUSSY – AND THEY KNOW IT! PUSSY WILL GET YOU A DESTROYED, IMPOVERISHED LIFE!

JUST SAY NO TO PUSSY! LEAVE WOMEN TO THEIR OWN DEVISES. LEAVE WOMEN TO PROVIDE AND PROTECT THEMSELVES.

I totally agree with that. And don’t forget to make an investigation to find how the laws that allow women to get away with their worst shitty behavior were conceived, written and passed.

Stop caring about women, start caring about justice.

Don’t be passive, take your card in one of those gynocentric political party and make everything to spread ideas that will indirectly neutralize pussy worship in it (for example just mention the hashtag kill all men and let feminist show how evil they are to the face of men that are present), or better destroy those parties from the inside.

Create a company, hire women, hire manginas and make the women you employed torture the manginas, so they can see who are the bad persons in society.

Boycott all the companies that give more jobs to women than to men.

Be a source of social validation for men around you to give them a good substitute to pussy validation they crave so desperately.

I think there is a tragic lure within MGTOW to succumb to the hipster skepticism so popular these days. There is a danger of avoiding any moral obligation, effort or ownership by simply opting out.

I am firmly entrenched as a MGHOW and say fuck that. I am a proud supporter of a Canadian MRA organization, CAFE, that has created one of the only mens shelter/support resource for men in Toronto and are in the process of expanding the program to other cities. And they have been dismissed in the same ways the article has suggested, yet still they persist with an honest effort and objective.
I have no dog in the fight, but I recognize my freedom as a MGTOW to support such efforts, and an obligation to help other boys and men who may not subscribe to the philosophy but still need help.